nothead,
.
So then most scholars of Christianity are Trin or JisG. What else is new? Bias? Bias is never new. It is as old as the mold on your beak, I mean porch, sir.
flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the
glory as of the only begotten of
the Father,) full of grace and
1
You emphasize quite the wrong thing here, since the GLORY of God was the thing emphasized. The same GLORY or Shekinah radiance of God for the Jew was upon the countenance, actions and words of the Christ. Robertson notwithstanding. See pentecostals gots it going on. That means they are pay good grade scale en whole en la cabeza. Besides, para patros has no definite article? What noun are you speaking of?
No man hath seen God at
any time; the only begotten
Son, which is in the bosom of
the Father, he hath declared
[him].
Again, the GLORY was seen not the man or God. This makes Jesus MESSIAH and only begotten son. He just got done saying no man hath seen God. So then how could they see Jesus if he is God? And again, the definite article is not there for PATROS, but the TOU implies "of the" in my knowing. So where do I know not?
Simplez Simon met a pieman. And paid him upper pay scale wages.
Purity gots you beat on logical thinking, sir. If disputed, then don't hang you theology on it. Too much dissonance, comprehendez? You can speak of probabilities, but for God to say He is One in the Beginning and now it turns out He is Three instead of one...improbable to the max, as my own son would say...if'n I had one.You are so self-contradictory its almost humorous.
First, your very incorrect in your view on textual criticism. It is one thing to have someone quote a verse with a particular wording and another to find an actual NT book or series of books (on multiple occasions) that has it written a particular way.
Early Scriptures were all handwritten and copied in an extremely laborious and expensive process. Moreover, when they wrote the Scriptures they were very careful in their copying the previous text. The degree of accuracy from these texts is staggering. So, if we have a Scripture from 200AD that has monogenes Theos, it means very likely that it was carefully copied from an earlier text that had the same phrase. So essentially, this text is a contemporary of these early church fathers and apologists like Tertullian and Ireneaus and was likely copied from a single text that predated them. So, check you logic homeboy.
My model has Christianity compromised by the third generation. 120 A.D. or so, by some and by the fourth century most. So what you say does not compromise my model.Second, we have the same people from the same dates who quote your preferred phrase also quoting monogenes Theos which matches the actual Scriptures we have found from that date. So, nothing you have PREDATES, monogenes Theos. But the multiple actual scriptures we have predate it by hundreds of years and is also quoted many, many times by early Christians.
.
Ole Jack (da Bear) says the same as me. Common sense says even early dated material can be corrupted. Reconciliation with the body of scripture is really the best hermeneutic method when dealing with variants. And nowhere does Jesus say he is God, or his disciples in my opinion.It seems clear you have realized this and are changing tactics. Previously, you were trying to refute ol' Jack by your early dates acquired from "Jack the (teddy) Bear." Now that I have shown you that these early dates don't hold a candle to the texts we have with monogenes Theos, you have changed your tune to say, "but to say this is definitive proof of textual accuracy is wrong..." Hahaha. You crack me up. One moment you are using dates to prove your point and when that attempt fails, you are running for the escape hatch of "these dates don't prove anything." Too funny
There is a reason that those who study textual variants for a living are "almost certain" that monogenes Theos represents the original. There is overwhelming e-v-I-d-e-n-c-e. Better jump on Google and see if you can find yet another bucket to bail water from your sinking theology.
So then most scholars of Christianity are Trin or JisG. What else is new? Bias? Bias is never new. It is as old as the mold on your beak, I mean porch, sir.
And the Word was madeThank you for your response again!
All Greek to me, however let's bring Koine 101 aboard: Article: Conceptionalizes, identifies, and specifies (points out - distinguishes) yet does not definitize as pervasively taught tioday (again, lower paygrade stuff), for example, identifies stressing identity of an individual or class. Anarthrous: Stresses mostly "the quality of being" of the identity of an individual or class, eg, stressing the quality of being 'dead,' and not so much regrding a 'dead' individual.
Jn.1:14, "(the) Only-begotten" Anarthrous ergo 'qualitative' Robertson p.794 - "Grammar of the N.T....." "State of Being" emphasized.
Jn.1:18, "God Only-begotten" Anarthrous again......."State of Being" emphasized.
flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the
glory as of the only begotten of
the Father,) full of grace and
1
You emphasize quite the wrong thing here, since the GLORY of God was the thing emphasized. The same GLORY or Shekinah radiance of God for the Jew was upon the countenance, actions and words of the Christ. Robertson notwithstanding. See pentecostals gots it going on. That means they are pay good grade scale en whole en la cabeza. Besides, para patros has no definite article? What noun are you speaking of?
No man hath seen God at
any time; the only begotten
Son, which is in the bosom of
the Father, he hath declared
[him].
Again, the GLORY was seen not the man or God. This makes Jesus MESSIAH and only begotten son. He just got done saying no man hath seen God. So then how could they see Jesus if he is God? And again, the definite article is not there for PATROS, but the TOU implies "of the" in my knowing. So where do I know not?
Simplez Simon met a pieman. And paid him upper pay scale wages.
You still aren't considering the possibility that monogenes theos is monogenes huios.Jn.1:18, God Only-begotten "who is in the bosom of the Father." We have to raise the bar to basic 101 2nd Semester stuff. Again the article o wn does only one thing: it attaches the participle to "God Only-begotten" afer the manner of a relative clause and describes this wonderful person for us. In no way does the article change or limit the timeless force of the participle. This would, indeed, be greatly changed if "God Only-begotten" dates only from the Virgin birth, for then any further modifier would be equally limited.
Anarthrous here would result in the participle, though it's separated from the main verb by ekeinos, "him," would tend to become adverbial, either temporal, "when he was in the bosom," or causal, "since he was in the bosom"; and thus instead of the timelessness we should have the more historical time indicated by the contative aorist eksegesato (Robertson p.829).
These are the assured grammatical facts contextually regarding o wn, which we should not yield when they are modified in the interest of a wrong view of the person who is truly "God Only-begotten."